Abstract

9 February 2007 Gloster J DBE Commercial Court [2007] EWHC 226 [2007] ArbLR 33 Arbitration proceedings--Anti-suit injunction--Party commencing arbitration and litigation--Whether the same claims made in proceedings making the same claims and seeking the same relief (no)--Whether arbitration vexatious and oppressive (no)--Whether to grant injunction (no)--Supreme Court Act 1981, s 37 Anti-arbitration injunction not granted where it did not serve the ends of justice Intermet loaned Ansol US$113,649,358.90. Ansol made some repayments, but then defaulted. In order to postpone repayment, Ansol provided security by transfer of the sole share in a UK company, Gradex, to Itermet's nominee, Ves. These arrangements were made pursuant to a `General Agreement' as allegedly varied. The General Agreement referred disputes to arbitration under `the Swiss Chamber of Commerce Regulations of International Arbitration'. The interest in the Moscow property, however, was not held by the UK company, but by a Gibraltar company of the same name. Intermet alleged that at the time of the agreement, Ansol knew that the company did not own the property and that it had deceived Intermet. Intermet began arbitration proceedings under the General Agreement claiming damages under the General Agreement. Intermet subsequently began court action seeking further damages in